• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Your opinion on Coke's version of America The Beautiful? [W:1014]

Do You like this version of "America The Beautiful?"


  • Total voters
    104
Prove that you factored in death rates. I want to see the calculations.

Going off of your logic here, and the fact that Latino immigration is expected to remain more or less constant, their population growth would be massively over 100 million.

As I pointed out earlier with the Nature Article, population growth equations are well established in science. If you can read the code, here is one:

import java.util.scanner;


public class Population


public static void main(String[] args)
{
int Size,
Year,
increase,
number,
Temp;
String input; // To Hold the user's input


//Create a Scanner object for keyboard input.
Scanner Keyboard = new scanner(System.in);




int startingSize = 0, dailyIncrease = 0, numberOfDays = 0;
int temp = 0;




//accept initial user input here


while (startingSize < 2)
{
System.out.print("Please enter a number that is greater than 1 for the population size: ");
startingSize = keyboardInput.nextInt(System.in);
}


while (yearlyIncrease < 0)
{
System.out.print("Enter a positive integer for the population size increase: ");
yearlyIncrease = keyboardInput.nextInt(System.in);
}


//do the same while loop for numberOfDays as a positive number > 0




temp = startingSize;
yearlyIncrease = yearlyIncrease + 1;


for(int i = 0; i < numberOfYears; i++)
{
System.out.println("Year " + i);
System.out.println("Number " + temp);
temp = temp * yearlyIncrease;
}


I've traveled and I've met people from all over. None of them are more "alien" than a non-English speaking immigrant.

I can tell you right now I have more in common with a recent Mexican immigrant I see while I am out fishing than I do with some Portland hipster.
 
I also read that a lot of the high Hispanic birth rate among teens is due to many of those same teens having more than one child. I'm sure that is a big contributing factor in the statistics.
 
As I pointed out earlier with the Nature Article, population growth equations are well established in science. If you can read the code, here is one:

import java.util.scanner;


public class Population


public static void main(String[] args)
{
int Size,
Year,
increase,
number,
Temp;
String input; // To Hold the user's input


//Create a Scanner object for keyboard input.
Scanner Keyboard = new scanner(System.in);




int startingSize = 0, dailyIncrease = 0, numberOfDays = 0;
int temp = 0;




//accept initial user input here


while (startingSize < 2)
{
System.out.print("Please enter a number that is greater than 1 for the population size: ");
startingSize = keyboardInput.nextInt(System.in);
}


while (yearlyIncrease < 0)
{
System.out.print("Enter a positive integer for the population size increase: ");
yearlyIncrease = keyboardInput.nextInt(System.in);
}


//do the same while loop for numberOfDays as a positive number > 0




temp = startingSize;
yearlyIncrease = yearlyIncrease + 1;


for(int i = 0; i < numberOfYears; i++)
{
System.out.println("Year " + i);
System.out.println("Number " + temp);
temp = temp * yearlyIncrease;
}




I can tell you right now I have more in common with a recent Mexican immigrant I see while I am out fishing than I do with some Portland hipster.

How would you know that if you cannot even communicate with him!!!
 
Frankly Gathomas88 I am not sure why you are now debating math just because it proves your assertion wrong that you cannot have high growth over 50 years with a fertility rate of 2.4. Personally, and anyone on here that has debated me will attest to this, when I am obviously wrong about something I admit it and move on. The problem is high fertility rates. If we return to high immigration rates, it will only make the problem worse. I don't see it as a problem of hispanics becoming the majority, but rather that we have too many people in this world period, regardless of their race or ethnicity.
 
As I pointed out earlier with the Nature Article, population growth equations are well established in science. If you can read the code, here is one:

The point here, is that there are estimated to be somewhere around 500,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants flooding into the United States each year. In addition to legal Hispanic immigration, we are very likely looking at a number closer to one million.

Going on a fifty year model here, that would equate to a population doubling for the American Latino community in and of itself without even factoring for birth rates

Since we're only expecting to see only a little over 100 million Latino Americans in the United States by 2050, clearly death rates must play a significant role in curbing their overall population growth.

I never said that the Latino community could not grow of its own accord. I said that the growth in question would not be quote so explosive as what we are expecting to see if it were not for the effects of immigration.

I can tell you right now I have more in common with a recent Mexican immigrant I see while I am out fishing than I do with some Portland hipster.

That seems kind of doubtful. The hipster might be an idiot, but that is only because he is deliberately choosing to behave like one.

You are still going to have a lot more in common with an American in terms of cultural frame of reference and life experiences than you are a foreigner, and a non-English speaking one at that.
 
The point here, is that there are estimated to be somewhere around 500,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants flooding into the United States each year. In addition to legal Hispanic immigration, we are very likely looking at a number closer to one million.

Going on a fifty year model here, that would equate to a population doubling for the American Latino community in and of itself without even factoring for birth rates

Since we're only expecting to see only a little over 100 million Latino Americans in the United States by 2050, clearly death rates must play a significant role in curbing their overall population growth.



That seems kind of doubtful. The hipster might be an idiot, but that is only because he is deliberately choosing to behave like one.

You are still going to have a lot more in common with an American in terms of cultural frame of reference and life experiences than you are a foreigner, and a non-English speaking one at that.

I am sorry you are math challenged here, but if you have a fertility rate of 2.4 and a death rate of .0056% per year, then birth rates are outstripping death rates by a good margin over time. To put it simply, everyone is born and everyone dies, if you have a fertility rate of over 2.0 then you have a growing population. Take it out over 50 years and its pretty substantial. In this case, a doubling of population over 50 years. Population growth due to high fertility rates is exponential, absent another plague death rates aren't.
 
I couldn't say. I know plenty of people that are not religious who are married and were not single parents or teen parents, and PLENTY of people who were raised in "religious" families who ended up being teen moms/single parents. I think religious people like to think that it does, but I really don't think religion itself plays a role in such things but more your upbringing and environment in general. Non-religious people can be good people too.

True, but I think religion plays heavily into upbringing and environment in the first place.

The overall importance of religion to our society has greatly declined over the course of the last century or so, and this has served to make both the general cultural environment and standards of upbringing a lot more morally relaxed.

This has pretty strongly correlated with an increase in the prevalency of things like single motherhood and divorce.
 
I am sorry you are math challenged here, but if you have a fertility rate of 2.4 and a death rate of .0056% per year, then birth rates are outstripping death rates by a good margin over time. To put it simply, everyone is born and everyone dies, if you have a fertility rate of over 2.0 then you have a growing population. Take it out over 50 years and its pretty substantial. In this case, a doubling of population over 50 years. Population growth due to high fertility rates is exponential, absent another plague death rates aren't.

And again, what about immigration then? Why aren't we going to see a Latino population of 150 or 200 million by 2050 if your reasoning is correct?

Clearly, there are some variables you are failing to account for here.
 
And again, what about immigration then? Why aren't we going to see a Latino population of 150 or 200 million by 2050 if your reasoning is correct?

Clearly, there are some variables you are failing to account for here.

We very well could see a Latino population that high in 50 years if immigration accelerates. Census demographers are assuming that Hispanic birth rates fall to the same levels of Whites and Asians in the coming decades.

You argued that birth rates could not account for the population of Hispanics doubling in 50 years. I pointed out that they certainly could if you have a fertility rate of 2.4. Thus disproving your assertion. Which you still don't seem to accept.

All I can say is that if we return to a net increase in Hispanic immigration to the United States, then I sure hope their fertility rate declines, otherwise the environmental costs of that kind of population growth could be catastrophic.
 
Have you checked out the rates for single-parenthood among Latino's in the U.S.? Or rates of dependency on government subsidies? The idea of the "naturally conservative" hispanic immigrants is largely a myth, dude.

"They" tend to be social conservative and economic liberal.
 
We very well could see a Latino population that high in 50 years if immigration accelerates. Census demographers are assuming that Hispanic birth rates fall to the same levels of Whites and Asians in the coming decades.

You argued that birth rates could not account for the population of Hispanics doubling in 50 years. I pointed out that they certainly could if you have a fertility rate of 2.4. Thus disproving your assertion. Which still don't seem to accept.

My point was that immigration was the major driving force behind the Latino community's explosive population growth. That has not been disproven.

Again, for the foreseeable future, immigration (both legal and illegal) is going to continue to account for somewhere between half and a quarter of the Latino American community's growth each year. This is going to add to the breeding population they already have, and increase their birth rates, as "off the boat" Latinos tend to have more children than the average American anyway.

Even if my initial claim regarding the mechanics of the process was mistaken (which it probably is, if you take a more simplistic approach to the math which the census estimates clearly did not), the gist of my argument here really hasn't changed.

All I can say is that if we return to a net increase in Hispanic immigration to the United States, then I sure hope their fertility rate declines, otherwise the environmental costs of that kind of population growth could be catastrophic.

To be fair, we would still only have a fraction of India or China's population.
 
My point was that immigration was the major driving force behind the Latino community's explosive population growth. That has not been disproven.

Again, for the foreseeable future, immigration (both legal and illegal) is going to continue to account for somewhere between half and a quarter of the Latino American community's growth each year. This is going to add to the breeding population they already have, and increase their birth rates, as "off the boat" Latinos tend to have more children than the average American anyway.

Even if my initial claim regarding the mechanics of the process was mistaken (which it probably is, if you take a more simplistic approach to the math which the census estimates clearly did not), the gist of my argument here really hasn't changed.



To be fair, we would still only have a fraction of India or China's population.

Have you ever been to China or India? If birth rates increased even slightly across the board and immigration were to remain constant, in 100 years we would be looking at a population of at least 700 million in the continental US. We very well could have higher densities than China at that point.
 
The point here, is that there are estimated to be somewhere around 500,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants flooding into the United States each year. In addition to legal Hispanic immigration, we are very likely looking at a number closer to one million.

Going on a fifty year model here, that would equate to a population doubling for the American Latino community in and of itself without even factoring for birth rates

Since we're only expecting to see only a little over 100 million Latino Americans in the United States by 2050, clearly death rates must play a significant role in curbing their overall population growth.

I never said that the Latino community could not grow of its own accord. I said that the growth in question would not be quote so explosive as what we are expecting to see if it were not for the effects of immigration.



That seems kind of doubtful. The hipster might be an idiot, but that is only because he is deliberately choosing to behave like one.

You are still going to have a lot more in common with an American in terms of cultural frame of reference and life experiences than you are a foreigner, and a non-English speaking one at that.

The estimate was for 2013 somewhere around 285,000 illegal immigrants (source CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years - CNN.com). They also catch hundreds of thousands before they cross the border and most likely also after they cross the border. So that figure of 500,000 seems way too high because most of these illegal immigrants will either leave voluntarily when they find out the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the border/they miss their families or they are caught and deported.

Yes, the number of Hispanics will grow because they have higher birth rates compared to white caucasian people and until that stabilizes (because in time the Hispanic birth rate will also go down). And that will most likely have an effect on election results, especially if the republicans keep on having such a bad relation with Hispanics.
 
The estimate was for 2013 somewhere around 285,000 illegal immigrants (source CNN Fact Check: Illegal border crossings at lowest levels in 40 years - CNN.com). They also catch hundreds of thousands before they cross the border and most likely also after they cross the border. So that figure of 500,000 seems way too high because most of these illegal immigrants will either leave voluntarily when they find out the grass isn't always greener on the other side of the border/they miss their families or they are caught and deported.

Yes, the number of Hispanics will grow because they have higher birth rates compared to white caucasian people and until that stabilizes (because in time the Hispanic birth rate will also go down). And that will most likely have an effect on election results, especially if the republicans keep on having such a bad relation with Hispanics.

True. Again, however; you cannot really deny that immigration also plays a major role in that.

At least a quarter of Hispanic population growth each year is going to be due to immigration for the foreseeable future, and fresh arrivals also have higher birth rates than more native population groups.

It also looks like illegals might be trending upwards again.

Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. May Be on Rise Again, Estimates Say
 
Last edited:
Have you ever been to China or India?

I've been all over asia. However, I also pay attention to demographics, which is why I know that:

If birth rates increased even slightly across the board and immigration were to remain constant, in 100 years we would be looking at a population of at least 700 million in the continental US. We very well could have higher densities than China at that point.

The worries about overpopulation are... implausible at this point. We are currently at "peak child" in the world, China and Japan both have massive demographic problems where they have failed to reproduce their populace in sufficient numbers to take care of older generations. The global population is currently slated to peak in about the mid-2050s, at which point it will begin declining; a problem that will be one of the defining challenges of the middle two halves of the twenty first century (how to handle a surplus of elderly relative to workers, and then how to handle a shrinking populace).

The movement among modernized nations is almost uniformly towards reducing birthrates, meaning that the populaces that will relatively dominate the future compared to their present position will be those who are least modernized. This is largely the result of social and economic drivers that do not tweak in the opposite direction; the best we can hope for is to continue to break even as a birthrate.

Now, mind you, we might hit 700 million in a century - who knows. But that will be immigration-driven, not birth rate driven, our birth-rates are already below replacement level.
 
Because it isn't true, obviously. Your "calculations" are flawed. :roll:

I don't think you understand, Sangha. I only bothered trying to reason with you as a formality.

The fact that immigration will soon be the primary source of US population growth is common knowledge.

Immigration Will Fuel Future Population Growth, Census Says

So you can't prove all the other inane claims you made, so now you're going to make another claim, which BTW is based on the most extreme of their projections.

The Latino community simply happens to be one of the groups most strongly benefiting from this fact.

It sounds like you're really bothered by the fact that someone other than white people are going to benefit.

Nothing bigoted about that.


Nope. American culture has been the mainstream since after the Mexican American War.

And has been, and continues to be, strongly influence by Latino culture. Always has, and always will

Spouting blatant nonsense does not make it true.

Then stop doing it and recognize that Latino culture is a part of american culture



Nonsense. Prove it.

Prove that Mexicans have always been in Texas and California, which was a part of Mexico?

That's hilarious!


To the point of not even speaking the same primary languages or considering themselves to be primarily "American?"

Again, Sangha, spouting nonsense as if it were a fact does not make it one.

Then stop spouting nonsense about how Latinos don't speak English. They do



And? Look at the difference they make.

Again, black population growth without the influence of immigration is relatively stable. Latino population growth with the addition of immigration is explosive.

Because their birth rate is much higher

That was my point all along. Keep up.

No, you've tried to make many points. You can't prove any of them.

And you can't even admit that you were wrong when you claimed that the black and Latino birth rates were similar.
 
^^ this.

I was going to say something similar to this --- what is being assimilated to 'american culture' because we as a country are very different culturaly. If you put a northerner down south, must they adapt to southern living to assimilate themselves? If not, why don't they have the same expectations?

He's operating under the delusion that there's one american culture, presumably white.
 
They were isolated from one another, and from their homelands.

Modern Latino immigrants are not, by and large.

Chinese immigrants back then were not isolated from one another. They lived in the same areas and interacted with each other daily.


I thought you just claimed that "Mexican culture" has always existed in the US? :roll:

That wouldn't be "assimilation."

Sure it is.




Prove that you factored in death rates. I want to see the calculations.

Going off of your logic here, and the fact that Latino immigration is expected to remain more or less constant, their population growth would be massively over 100 million.

You're making up #'s again.


I've traveled and I've met people from all over. None of them are more "alien" than a non-English speaking immigrant.

And there are relatively few Latinos who do not speak English. They're not alien.
 
True, but I think religion plays heavily into upbringing and environment in the first place.

The overall importance of religion to our society has greatly declined over the course of the last century or so, and this has served to make both the general cultural environment and standards of upbringing a lot more morally relaxed.

This has pretty strongly correlated with an increase in the prevalency of things like single motherhood and divorce.

I think education plays a bigger role than religion. These girls need to realize that being a teen mother is very difficult and taxing. It's not like babysitting. They also need to be made to realize that these cute little babies grow up into actual children and then teenagers. I also think that there are a lot of situations where nothing may work at all because some of these girls probably come from broken homes, abusive parents, etc. I think that if you have parents that raise their daughter(s) to be happy and confident as well as educated, then that can work too.
 
The point here, is that there are estimated to be somewhere around 500,000 illegal Hispanic immigrants flooding into the United States each year.

Nope. More like 150,000/yr

Migration Information Source - Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States
Data from the Pew Hispanic Center show that the annual flow of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico has declined from about 500,000 per year between March 2000 and March 2005, to about 325,000 per year between March 2005 and March 2007, and to about 150,000 per year between March 2007 and March 2009. Between 2008 and 2009, the unauthorized immigrant population from Mexico appears to have declined, although the change is not statistically meaningful. This finding is reinforced by US Border Patrol apprehensions data and Mexican government surveys. However, the change in the unauthorized immigrant population from other regions of Latin America (excluding Mexico) did definitively decline in 2009 from 2.5 to 2.2 million people. The unauthorized immigrant population from other regions of the world beyond Latin America has remained stable between 2.0 and 2.3 million for much of the last decade.
 
True. Again, however; you cannot really deny that immigration also plays a major role in that.

At least a quarter of Hispanic population growth each year is going to be due to immigration for the foreseeable future, and fresh arrivals also have higher birth rates than more native population groups.

It also looks like illegals might be trending upwards again.

Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. May Be on Rise Again, Estimates Say

Your link does not support your claim that a quarter of all Hispanic population growth is due to immigration. In fact, the link contradicts your claims

IOW, you're making up #'s again
 
I've been all over asia. However, I also pay attention to demographics, which is why I know that:



The worries about overpopulation are... implausible at this point. We are currently at "peak child" in the world, China and Japan both have massive demographic problems where they have failed to reproduce their populace in sufficient numbers to take care of older generations. The global population is currently slated to peak in about the mid-2050s, at which point it will begin declining; a problem that will be one of the defining challenges of the middle two halves of the twenty first century (how to handle a surplus of elderly relative to workers, and then how to handle a shrinking populace).

Yes, I understand that. As economic opportunities have increased for women across the world, and as their rights have increased and they have gained access to birth control, birth rates go down.

We see this in this country as well:

• Birth rate by family income in the U.S. 2010 | Statistic

That is why census demographers assume a declining fertility rate for hispanics going forward. As Hispanics move up the income demographic, it is assumed their birth rates will decline just like they have for whites and asians.

In the case of China, they had to reduce their population growth as they do not have sufficient arable land to feed a larger population. Japan has one of the highest population densities on earth, there is no way they could have continued with rapid population growth. Economics is not the only consideration at work in the world.

The movement among modernized nations is almost uniformly towards reducing birthrates, meaning that the populaces that will relatively dominate the future compared to their present position will be those who are least modernized. This is largely the result of social and economic drivers that do not tweak in the opposite direction; the best we can hope for is to continue to break even as a birthrate.

Outside of a handful of countries that had significant overpopulation issues and thus enacted public policies to reduce birth rates, in the vast majority of countries birth rates have dropped as women had more economic opportunities and greater rights. Other than the economic challenges of reduced population growth, that is hardly a bad thing.

Now, mind you, we might hit 700 million in a century - who knows. But that will be immigration-driven, not birth rate driven, our birth-rates are already below replacement level.

I hope we don't get anywhere near that population. I was simply arguing that it is plausible if birth rates were to tick up again.
 
Yes, I understand that. As economic opportunities have increased for women across the world, and as their rights have increased and they have gained access to birth control, birth rates go down.

We see this in this country as well:

• Birth rate by family income in the U.S. 2010 | Statistic

That is why census demographers assume a declining fertility rate for hispanics going forward. As Hispanics move up the income demographic, it is assumed their birth rates will decline just like they have for whites and asians.

In the case of China, they had to reduce their population growth as they do not have sufficient arable land to feed a larger population. Japan has one of the highest population densities on earth, there is no way they could have continued with rapid population growth. Economics is not the only consideration at work in the world.

Your thrust here is inaccurate - every time Malthusian predictions have come into play, they have been disproven. China, for example, did not suffer hunger from her large population, but rather her massively destructive centralization projects of the Great Leap Forward and the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. Today China's population is larger and yet better fed because she has liberalized her economy. You could feed literally the entire current populace of the world from a few states in the United States if you had to, resources are available aplenty for billions more people on this earth, especially given our ever-increasing technological acumen at leveraging them to greater and greater ends.

Japan and China both are facing severe domestic and fiscal problems from their mis-shapen demographics; and the West is not far behind. On top of being brutal and tyrannical, China's population policies have doomed her hopes to reclaim her former position in the region, and will lead inevitably to increased suffering in that nation. Nor is that effect limited to Asia. Overlay a projection of European countries with the lowest fertility rates with a projection of European countries with overburdened budgets and threatened national fiscs and you will discover a direct causal relationship. In Greece, every 100 grandparents is depending on 42 grandkids for support. That is not a math that you can make work in any kind of decent way.

Outside of a handful of countries that had significant overpopulation issues and thus enacted public policies to reduce birth rates, in the vast majority of countries birth rates have dropped as women had more economic opportunities and greater rights.

That, and as we have socialized retirement costs, leading to a bit of a tragedy of the commons, where it is in everyone's economic interests to avoid the expense of raising the children whom they will later depend upon for support in their old age.

Other than the economic challenges of reduced population growth, that is hardly a bad thing.

...you do realize we are talking about the end of the social safety net as we know it, along with the weakening of the relative position of western culture? That all those things we hold dear - individual liberty, equality between the sexes, trade, freedom of religion... those things are not naturally self-protecting and will not survive the reduction of the culture that espouses them.

I hope we don't get anywhere near that population. I was simply arguing that it is plausible if birth rates were to tick up again.

I hope we do, so long as we relatively keep or increase the share of people who are net productive.
 
Back
Top Bottom